Preemie Baby saved because scissors were left on scale

Originally posted by crazyewok
This is a exception not the rule. And its not the govermnet, it normaly hospital manages that make these desions like your health insurance makes
simaliar desions.

In the UK thosuands of people who would be left to die due to lack of money in the USA get treatment. Hell in the USA I bet if mommy and dady didnt
have much money that baby would have died as well or the parents would of ended up with crippling hopsital bills or in a poor quality medicare
center.

O and guess what Ameriacans! We can pay to go to private hospitals too if we are not happy with the NHS!

^^^ This...

Nicely said chap, nicely said... It would have been a clinical decision made by the consultant, if it ever happens. I can find many stories of babies
who were born at 30+ weeks and survived on the NHS.

My own brother was born 7 weeks early, weighed bugger all and had renal failure, the NHS saved him. In fact, Guys & St Thomas in London is the
most advanced hospital in the world for renal care.

At least we have a choice and don't have worry about having to sell our homes if we get seriously ill. I get private care through my employer
(at no charge to my gross) as well as access to the NHS...

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the
US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless
of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency
medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies. My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma
children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given
every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British
hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and
the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to die.

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the
US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless
of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency
medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies. My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma
children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given
every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British
hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and
the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to die.

So if a desitue person without insurance or any means to pay needs a expensive cancer drug they will get it for free?

Or if they need s expensive and complicated back surgery again will they get it free?

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the
US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless
of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency
medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies.

You state that no one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status, but this only carries to emergency treatment. The NHS delivers high
level treatment of ALL kinds, emergency and otherwise, to all people, funded by the tax payer from cradle to grave.

My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All
babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or
whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no
patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to
die.

All patients are given the maximum care that is possible in the NHS no matter what. The simple fact is though that even in the US there are set
evidence-based guidelines that state the most appropriate actions to be taken in any given clinical scenario. The guidelines used by the NHS trust in
question are usually based on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) research, which is taken from research from all over the World.
Clinical practitioners in the US use similar guidelines and protocols. Indeed when I was practicing a child was considered not to be viable prior to
26 weeks (as opposed to 24 weeks now). Guidelines and protocols change and are updated as medical interventions and research improves.

I was a nurse in an A&E (ED) in Northern Ireland prior to joining the Army. Admittedly I haven't been practicing for several years, but things
haven't changed that much. We don't just let people die. The babies in question are given adequate care to maintain life less actual full clinical
intervention such as Paediatric Advanced Life Support. Unfortunately the majority of time the children die. This is not because they are not cared
for, it is because their body is not mature enough to support life outside the womb. They aren't just stuck on a scale and thrown in a bucket if the
'magic number' isn't reached.

The hard-working men and women of the NHS do everything they can to give the best clinical outcome with the resources that are available. They give
treatments and follow-up care on a daily basis free of charge that all but the most wealthy in the US could only dream of.

Let me clarify that my statement to the OP is based on her assumptions about denied emergency care to a premie in a british hospital will be carried
over to all US hospitals.

To answer your question, maybe yes and maybe no, this does not fall under the provisions of the EMTALA law but will fall on the shoulders of community
care in your area....donated hospital services, charities, and churches to name a few organizatons that get involved in their community to provide
these costly services to those who can't afford it.

But when it comes to freendom, healthcare and social issues your country is falling and is certainy not number 1.

As much as you want to beleive. Your country is no longer the best country to live in.

You can cling to your fantasy of the American dream, put your finger in your ears and sing the national athem and throw your indroctrinated slogans
like "land of the free" and "liberty and Democray" round as much as you like and mean while your country will fall apart.

Originally posted by elouina
First to address the 1.4 % business. Oh my.... Same thing, just a different way of showing it....

OK my math sucks, you've found my weakness lol. But 1.4 weighing under 3lbs means even less are born under one lbs, so yes it is a pretty low
number.

About 7500 are born a year under 1 lb in the US and about 10% of them survive.

Human emotions are a normal part of life and can't be avoided in a healthy person. For example, the emotions of compassion and empathy, are
what keeps folks from shooting defenseless children or firemen.

True, but if you let your emotions rule your thinking you do not think logically.

And parents in my area DO get a choice.

OK.

You do realise that you are also putting down a country that is not as wealthy as yours, and yet manage to provide better health care. Bloody snobs.

Sorry I do not mean to derail this thread but I just want to respond to this one comment.

I really don't know many americans that think the US is the best country on earth. Far from it. Most of us feel we are done for and the way our
country is set up with a two party system constantly at war with each other will continue to keep us divided with a net result of we are all screwed.
I have traveled to other countries and I see how much better the way of life is for those residents of those countries. Most of us here are trying to
make a difference but it is much like spinning your wheels in the mud, so to speak. My only wish is that every american would have health care
coverage including mental health care. At least that would be a start.

The problem is that it's human nature for mothers to keep babies, no matter what. But if human nature starts to work against us, what then? It's not
butterflies and rainbows.

Either people govern themselves or somebody else does. Same deal with criminals. If they can't play by the rules then somebody else is going to have
to enforce them.

I'm not supporting tyranny. Merely stating that some things cannot just be placed on trust alone. There has to be a standard otherwise every crazy
person in the world could let loose.

The tricky part is determining what the rules are and who sets them. Because if the population isn't being represented in the rule-making then you
essentially have tyranny.

My opinion is that a premature baby is not unviable. I myself was premature. I was 3 lbs 2 ounces. But lets take this to the extremes and start
imagining babies that're 3-8 ounces. What then? Do we try to save them or do we just put the tools away and shut the machines off and let it die? At
some point, if nobody sets rules, we're going to waste $$$ and time on hopeless cases. I know this fires up people's emotions, but rules have to be
set or nothing will be affordable. And if nothing is affordable then the 3-8 ounce babies are going to die anyway because there're no machines to save
them.

Threads like this appeal to people's emotions, but there's a cold hard reality too. If we don't step in and control the cold hard reality then nature
will, and nature will make it very painful. Next time you break a leg or fall 30 feet, see how well you do without hospitals. I know that all the
rules and roads and walls can make this life overbearing sometimes, but they're there for a reason. If you can't understand what I'm saying then just
imagine a world without police, without oversight, without a standing military, without laws, and now ask yourself one question: Am I feeling lucky?
Well, am I?

I don't want anybody to break a leg or fall 30 feet. Just explaining something.

The UK apparently does not work to save preemies that weigh under a pound, as they are not deemed "viable". This baby was given treatment,
mistakenly because scissors were left on the scale when she was weighed. It was discovered later, but she was already being taken care of. She is now
home with her parents, and reportedly doing well.

She was born with a twin sister, who died a few weeks after birth... One must wonder if it was a result of her not being "viable", and thus not
receiving any care.

This is what happens when government decides who gets care and who doesn't. Coming to a US state near you soon. Enjoy all you voted for in 2008 and
2012

I didn't research at all to find out if it's true, but in the UK, there are private insurers, and self-pay is allowed as well. The government decides
what will be covered under the national healthcare system. Individuals, if they can afford it, are 100% free to hold private insurance, or make
payment arrangements themselves. The baby could have been saved either way, but, at least according to the story, the parents chose not to, since it
wouldn't be covered under their national insurance.

ETA: after a few seconds searching, I think your source is bunk, and little more than a scare tactic against taxpayer-funded healtchcare for all.
Here's just one example that seems to indicate this story is a lie, at best:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

edit on 12/28/2012 by dogstar23 because: found
evidence this is a hoax

The UK apparently does not work to save preemies that weigh under a pound, as they are not deemed "viable". This baby was given treatment,
mistakenly because scissors were left on the scale when she was weighed. It was discovered later, but she was already being taken care of. She is now
home with her parents, and reportedly doing well.

She was born with a twin sister, who died a few weeks after birth... One must wonder if it was a result of her not being "viable", and thus not
receiving any care.

This is what happens when government decides who gets care and who doesn't. Coming to a US state near you soon. Enjoy all you voted for in 2008 and
2012

This story is a perfect reminder of why atheists, sociopaths and psychopaths should not be allowed to work in government or hold elected office as
they are not morally capable enough to fulfill those roles.

The odds of a child under a pound surviving are very low, the “one pound law” is not a “law” it’s more of a guideline. I use guidelines all
the time this one will probably say something along the lines of “if the infant is under a pound research shows that this is inconsistent with
life” it will not say “if the infant is under a pound do nothing”. It is at the discretion of the medical team how best to deal with the
situation; if the child has a pulse then they are going to do everything to save the child’s life as a guideline is only ever a guideline.

It’s probably like CPR, European guidelines always say a ratio of 30:2 compressions to breaths however sometimes I go with 10:1 depending on the
nature of the resuscitation. And at times we just stop with resuscitation because it is obvious that there will be no quality of life following ages
of hypoxic brain. This is much the same, the complications that a child premature weighing under a pound is really quite extreme so this is a big
consideration when deciding if it is worth attempting resuscitation.

This just so the OP knows, has nothing to do with government, David Cameron does not tell the doctor’s when to stop, research and experience does it
has very little to do with government.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.